The Kantian perspective offers a compelling analysis of the issue of global warming and how an engineer can act. Please entertain the thought that this Utilitarian conclusion, that engineers should convert to alternative energy sources when it is beneficial to the health, safety, and welfare of the public, has been determined rationally. Now, consider whether this conclusion treats people as a means to an end, or as an end. If people are an end, then not only their health, safety, and welfare are valued. In addition, human autonomy and freedom are also valued. If people are used as a means, then their autonomy and freedom will likely be reduced. The engineer may find, at present, that allowing autonomy and freedom in the present conflicts with …show more content…
However, global warming will almost assuredly inhibit the choices that future generations have. Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach to quality of life is an appropriate way to measure autonomy and freedom here. People use their autonomy and freedom to do what they want – to improve their quality of life – whether that be walking in the park or reading or watching television. There are myriad ways that the effects of global warming might limit our ability to choose these activities in the future. For instance, higher temperatures may limit autonomy simply by being too hot. If the world were several degrees warmer in the summer, people would feel tired and get dehydrated. They would be unable to play football or go jogging because the heat would be unbearable. Walking to lunch or walking to your car in an asphalt parking lot may become strenuous. In the future, people will be unable to do many of the activities we currently value – or they may find them less enjoyable. Future generations are not adequately valued in the existing approach to global warming, their capabilities and their quality of life are not as imperative to us as they should …show more content…
He likely does not have access to adequate resources to inform or persuade the public in this manner. Furthermore, the complexity of the social and political landscape makes this discussion remarkably difficult to find success in. However, the prospective energy engineer is in a position to make an informed decision wherein the public cannot adequately. In this case, the prospective energy engineer should recognize that decisions about global warming are proper engineering decisions. The decision about what resources to use for energy production should be assessed by engineers, within their professions. However, engineers should follow a mandate to reduce the impact of global warming, in order to adequately preserve the autonomy, freedom, and quality of life of future
Global Warming, much of what does or does not happen forty years from now rests on our actions or inactions taken between now and then. The crucial question is whether we should pour all our resources into mitigation – reducing our carbon emissions. According to scientists who study the climate there are other environmental problems; “we now face a global crises in land use and agriculture that could undermine the health, security, and sustainability of our civilization”.
Will this century mark the decline of society? Is the future safe from the mistakes of mankind? In “Learning How to Die in the Anthropocene”, Roy Scranton suggests that the question we should be asking ourselves about global warming is not whether it exists or how it can be stopped, but rather how are we going to deal with it. The purpose of the article is to convince everyone that current life is unsustainable, and that nothing can be done to reverse the process; we must acknowledge that the future will be drastically different and plan in advance if civilization is to keep moving forward. Dr. Scranton develops a realistic tone that relies on logos, pathos, and ethos appeals to persuade readers of his claim. Scranton sufficiently backs up
The dawn of a new engineering technique called geoengineering aims to save the Earth via large-scale manipulation of the environment to counteract global warming. “The Geoengineering Gambit” by Kevin Bullis, is an article about some of the ways geoengineering could solve the climate crisis and the problems that could be created by those solutions. Bullis gained knowledge of geoengineering and the climate problem from his work as energy editor for the journal Technology Review. Bullis' job as an editor builds for him a strong base of believability in the field, and demonstrates the basis for his credibility while building his ethos. The proposed geoengineering solutions are in relation to the current climate problems. Bullis’ purpose was to bring attention to the current geoengineering proposed solutions. Bullis talks about the current solutions that geoengineering offers but also the perceived problems as well. Bullis also brings up the ethical problems that can arise from these solutions. For example, problems nations would have with another nation launching things into the atmosphere is one of the many problems Bullis finds cause to study. Bullis also brings up his feelings on geoengineering and how it would be better if mankind were able to lessen the impact on our environment instead of applying temporary or artificial fixes. Bullis intentionally aimed this article at everyone given the worldwide impact on people that some claim through geoengineering. Bullis unintentionally aimed the article at the US Government and other leaders from influential nations. The tone of the article is really saying that geoengineering could possibly help but more tests and results are necessary before drawing important conclusions. ...
The author discusses the enticement to political groups because of geoengineering’s alleged potential to reverse global warming rapidly and cheaply, as he presents concern regarding the significant risks and the threat of technology gone wrong. The author looks at the basic authority issues raised by geoengineering, its possible functions, governance, and specifically addresses inadequate research funding, rejection, and unilateral vs individual action. Bodansky is a professor at Arizona State University Sandra Day O 'Connor College of Law and has written three books and dozens of articles and book chapters on international law, international environmental law and climate change policy. This article will be a useful tool in discovering
Climate change is on the international policy agenda primarily because of warnings from scientists. Their forecasts of a potentially dangerous increase in the average global temperature, fortuitously assisted by unusual weather events, have prompted governments to enter into perhaps the most complicated and most significant set of negotiations ever attempted. Key questions - the rapidity of global climate change, its effects on the natural systems on which humans depend, and the options available to lessen or adapt to such change - have energized the scientific and related communities in analyses that are deeply dependent on scientific evidence and research.
Scranton believes that human beings are killing present life by ignoring the effects of global warming on the world. He continues to warn the reader that change is coming regardless of what people do now and that they human race must prepare for what is inevitably coming, as it will be the collapse of global civilization as it is known. Scranton states that this time we are living in, the anthropocene, presents humans with multiple challenges but mostly, “what it means to be human” (page 234). How to control the inevitable
...e or limit the effects of global warming will also make a difference (Pollan). We are the ones who create this issue through industrialization. Therefore, we should also be the beings who will find viable solutions. The essay of White addresses the issue on lifestyle change and socio-economic factors. This means that people should know how climate change can affect their personal lives so that they don’t need to ask themselves “why bother?”
Global warming has become on of the most controversial issues in the media today. While most of the Western world countries have generally accepted the premise that man's chemical emissions in the atmosphere can and are affected by the world’s climate patterns, in the United States, the issue has become so politicized with many republicans challenging the science behind the theory. Global warming is a greenhouse effect whereby gases are trapped on the earth’s surface causing it to heat up (Maslin 14). It is based on the worldwide temperature records that have been maintained by human beings through their activities since the 1880,s. In addition, global warming is not only caused by human activities only but also through climate changes in solar radiance. The problem is that, humans continue to contribute to the global warming phenomenon. All citizens should work in reducing human activities that cause global warming and also support the development of nuclear power. Scientists deem that, global warming is mainly caused by human activities which accelerate the natural process by creating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Human activities have become a great contribution to the greenhouse effect and this means that climate changes are inevitable. They further argue that, if these activities continue and are not reduced, it will lead to more trapping of energy radiated from the earth and this will likely lead to extreme weather and global warming. Global warming should be at reduced levels or else, it will be catastrophic.
Other ethical questions such as “How should we- all living today evaluate the well-being of the future generations” (Brome). Scientific data shows that Global climate change will have some lasting effects on the planet, ecosystems and humans. There are many “risks associated with climate change such as the risk of pathogen, and disease” this will affect future generations, and animals this is why we should reduce our emissions of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere (Crank and Jacoby). “The consequences of heightening greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere appear after a time lag, often decades or more” (Somerville). Even though the current generations are “benefiting from cheap use of burning fossil fuels, and using the atmosphere as a free dump for our waste products” all humans are obligated to find a cleaner way to live so we don’t set future humans up for failure (Somerville). Somerville also explains that within us burning these fossil fuels, and ignoring the consequences “we sentence our children and grandchildren to cope with the resulting climate change” (Somerville). Also we need to take action to prevent further damage of Earth’s climate not only for the future children of the world but other species that we share the planet with. In the article “The Ethics of Climate Change” by John Broome he states that the answer to this ethical question can be easy one without the need of a sophisticated philosopher (Broome). He say that the answer to ethical climate change questions can be answered by simple common sense thinking (Broome). “You should not do something for your own benefit that will harm another’s” (Broome). He asks the question which is worse the death of a child in 2108 or the death of a child currently living?” (Broome). John Broome argues that we have a responsibility to
The first part of this essay discusses what the human species has done to deal with the problem of climate change. While some improvements have been made, the problem has not been addressed aggressively enough to stop the damage. What is amazing about this is the denial of so many people that problems exist. If they do realize the risks, they are simply not taking actions to contain the damage.
For these reasons, global warming stands as one of the most daunting policy issues facing our world today. This is compounded by the debate over the very existence of climate change. While countless sources of empirical evidence testify to the very real presence of climate change the world over, considerable denial of the phenomenon still exists. The argument has been made that evidence about climate change is a gross overstatement, or in some cases, a complete fabrication. Despite the evidence to the contrary, many interest groups with considerable political clout have successfully perpetuated the argument that documented changes in the environment are a product of natural cyclical changes in climate, and are not associated with human activities. However, even the acceptance of this particular brand of reality is no grounds for the disregard of environmental consciousness. Even if one accepts the premise that recent climate change is not resultant of human activity, the rationale behind environmental conservation remains ...
...dearly-held, unconscious collective assumptions may impede our chances for survival. Or, as Poliakoff, et. al., noted, “fundamental changes in technology are adopted… only when they provide real advantage” (810). Are human beings inherently selfish, or are they capable of rising above that? Will we use this power we have developed to help ourselves, or to attempt to help the world? “Why can’t we achieve a better balance between people, resources, and the environment? … The complete answers to these questions lie deeply within the complex realms of science, philosophy, religion, economics, and politics.” (170). The answers may be complicated. The truth is, industrialization has changed our relationship to the environment. It has enabled us to hurt it far more than any other species, but it has also given us the ability to help. The power of choice now lies with us.
a strong controversy about the manmade climate crisis. The role of the engineers is to find the solutions to decrease pollutions. Haphazard development has damaged the environment
In conclusion, many facts point to global warming being detrimental to our world. With scientific predictions, rising temperatures, human causes, drastic climate changes and animal adaptations being some of the more thought about topics it`s hard not to agree that our world can not continue to be used as it is. Even with some scientists arguing against the topic, our Earth`s orbit changing the temperatures before and have been through hotter and cooler time periods the pros still outweigh the cons. This is why we, as a global population, need to take into consideration the outcome of our planet should we continue to abuse it the way we do. Our earth and resources are not a right but a privilege and we should learn to treat them as such before we no longer have either.
One of the most substantial problems in the world today is global warming. This gradual warming of the earth is in occurrence at an extremely slow rate but it is happening. Many scientists believe that as human’s work and release greenhouse gases into the earth’s atmosphere, it can become dangerous for the long lasting life of humans and our environment. “Unless we take immediate action, the impacts of global warming will continue to intensify, grow ever more costly and damaging, and increasingly affect the entire planet - including you, your community, and your family” (“Global Warming Impacts”). Everyone should be knowledgeable about global warming and the dangers that it brings to our planet. This essay will examine